RAMESH M. PROPRIETOR OF M/S. KLEANWELL PAPER PRODUCTS, NO. 38, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE - 560203 BANGALORE OFFICE AT NO. 46, 3RD CROSS, 4TH LOCK, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560020 Vs. YATEENDRA LAIN, SON OF MANOHARMALJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , towards discharge of a debt, issued a cheque bearing No. 169094 dated 23.04.2007 of Punjab National Bank, Commercial Street Branch, Bangalore, for Rs. 1,70,707/ -, i.e., for the purchase made from the respondent under invoice No. 142 dated 23.03.2007. The cheque having been presented for encashment, was returned on 24.05.2007 with an endorsement 'exceeds arrangement'. A demand notice was sent on 28.05.2007 to pay the cheque amount. Notice was served on the petitioner on 04.06.2007, to which he sent a reply dated 16.06.2007 acknowledging the liability. Since the cheque amount was not paid, complaint under Section 200 Cr. P.C., alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act') was filed. Cognizance was taken and process was issued. Accused appeared and pleaded not guilty. During the course of trial, matter having been referred to Lok Adalath, on 30.03.2011, the parties entered into a settlement. The accused having paid Rs. 1,00,000/ -, agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ -, in three installments. The first installment of Rs. 35,000/ - was to be paid on 15.04.2011. The complainant agreed to accept the balance sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ - as compensation. The accused was sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of one year, if the fine amount was not paid. Accused filed Crl. A. No. 350/2011 in the Sessions Court., Bangalore City. The appeal was dismissed by a Judgment dated 17.08.2011. Learned advocate for the petitioner does not dispute the issuance of the cheque in question, its dishonour and the issuance of demand notice to pay the cheque amount. The amount was not paid. Since the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation from the date the demand notice was issued, the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Act has been met. There being no defence, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Act having not been discharged, conviction of the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the Act is justified.

(2.) SINCE the cheque was issued for Rs. 1,70,707/ - on 23.04.2007, the sentence of fine imposed is justified. In the circumstances, petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The amount in deposit be released in favour of the complainant.